Pharmacotherapy for Cardiovascular Disorders

Description Patient CB has a history of strokes. The patient has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Drugs currently prescribed include the…

Description

Patient CB has a history of strokes. The patient has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Drugs currently prescribed include the following:• Glipizide 10 mg po daily• HCTZ 25 mg daily• Atenolol 25 mg po daily• Hydralazine 25 mg qid• Simvastatin 80 mg daily• Verapamil 180 mg CD daily

Photo Credit: Getty Images/Science Photo Library RFAs an advanced practice nurse, it is your responsibility to recommend appropriate treatment options for patients with cardiovascular disorders. To ensure the safety and effectiveness of drug therapy, advanced practice nurses must consider aspects that might influence pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes such as medical history, other drugs currently prescribed, and individual patient factors.Reference: Murphy, S. L., Xu, J., Kochanek, K. D., & Arias, E. (2018). Mortality in the United States, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db328.htmTo Prepare• Review the Resources for this module and consider the impact of potential pharmacotherapeutics for cardiovascular disorders introduced in the media piece.• Review the case study assigned by your Instructor for this Assignment.• Select one the following factors: genetics, gender, ethnicity, age, or behavior factors.• Reflect on how the factor you selected might influence the patient’s pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.• Consider how changes in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes might impact the patient’s recommended drug therapy.• Think about how you might improve the patient’s drug therapy plan based on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes. Reflect on whether you would modify the current drug treatment or provide an alternative treatment option for the patient.By Day 7 of Week 2Write a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following:• Explain how the factor you selected might influence the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes in the patient from the case study you were assigned.• Describe how changes in the processes might impact the patient’s recommended drug therapy. Be specific and provide examples.• Explain how you might improve the patient’s drug therapy plan and explain why you would make these recommended improvements.

Sample Solution
This paper will dissect the triumphs and disappointments of the biggest show on the security of exchange of jeopardized species. There are different issues that hinder CITES from meeting every one of its goals. Nonetheless, the Convention has and keeps on prevailing with regards to constraining exchange to ensure undermined species as it were. It is unthinkable for a show that spreads such an expansive scope of animal types to control the exchange of each and every creature, in this way the positive experimental proof exhibits that CITES is generally speaking fruitful. So as to exhibit this, I will initially investigate the posting method and the begging to be proven wrong nearness of logical objectiveness, which impacts its appropriateness and setting. Next, the structure of the Convention will be examined with respect to how it aides and prevents usage. Further, the issues and reactions in regards to CITES’ down to earth implementation will be evaluated. In the wake of having confirmed that the benefits of the Convention itself exceed the drawbacks, the exploration question will be examined through the contextual analysis of elephants. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora went into power on the first July 1975. It focusses on managing global exchange of specific types of creatures and plants to guarantee that their endurance isn’t compromised. As of now, CITES incorporates upwards of 35,000 species. Because of the natural life exchange showcase being worth billions of pounds and including a huge number of animal varieties, controlling it is crucial. Refers to centers explicitly around ensuring species that are being abused, because of the enormous measure of exchange. Since levels of abuse for every specie vary, CITES has different degrees of security. In spite of the fact that this bargain is multilateral and subsequently has lawfully restricting power, it just gives a structure inside which each Party ought to embrace their very own household enactment. This outlines the need of solid global participation to accomplish the point of the Convention. Because of interest being deliberate, the way that such huge numbers of nations have joined shows a readiness to work together in endeavors to spare imperiled species. The fair philosophical methodology likewise accommodates why the Convention has gotten so a lot of regard and now incorporates 183 Parties. Refers to is one of the worldwide natural settlements that has been most broadly embraced and accomplished extraordinary victories. The incomparable basic leadership assortment of CITES is the Conference of Parties. The CoP is comprised of agents of each Party in the Convention, who meet each a few years to survey the advancement of the present postings, just as think about whether new species should be included or moved under an alternate Appendix. The other fundamental body of the Convention is the Secretariat, which is regulated by the United Nations Environment Program. This position incorporates an organizing and warning job, just as going about as a help system in the execution procedure. 2. The Listings under CITES: a. Appendixes Explained: Refers to sets up three Appendices into which species can be recorded, contingent upon the measure of security required. Reference section I “include[s] all species compromised with annihilation which are or might be influenced in terms of professional career,” accordingly must be exchanged “uncommon conditions.” There is a prohibition on Appendix I species except if either an import or fare license is conceded. Informative supplement II incorporates species that “may become [threatened with extinction] except if exchange examples of such species is dependent upon exacting guideline.” Parties are required to screen and limit exchange, except if it is shown through logical proof that it is allowed. Finally, the least directed is Appendix III which incorporates “all species which any Party recognizes as being dependent upon guideline inside its locale to avoid or limiting misuse” and demands CITES’ support in controlling exchange. Exchange under Appendix III must be observed, yet not confined. The postings under the Appendices are not fixed. Supplement I and II can be corrected by a 66% lion’s share vote of the Parties present, while Appendix III can be singularly changed. Choices, including alterations, are embraced by the CoP and get authoritative following 90 days without approval. The strengthening given to the Parties, through the type of designated law-production, can be seen as concerning. It empowers them to take noteworthy choices without being checked by any prevalent position. It additionally diminishes the weight on each Party in casting a ballot, as they realize that their one vote won’t be the determinant of the choice, which may bring about careless choices. This confirmations the requirement for well-contemplated criteria, since they are not given by CITES, and are at the zenith of the basic leadership process. b. Disappointment of Bern Criteria: The principal endeavor to give a far reaching set of rules was at the Bern Conference of Parties in 1976. The posting criteria built up norms that must be considered for species in Appendices I and II. It was an endeavor to utilize natural proof when deciding, nonetheless, the significance of this information depended to a great extent on its accessibility. This was a positive move away from the dubious language of the Convention, yet, it was ambiguous and took into account political perspectives to impact choices. Also, it made it practically unimaginable for species in Appendix I to be downsized to Appendix II, which undermined the unmistakable quality of Appendix I. The Bern Criteria were at last progressively worried about securing untamed life, as opposed to satisfying the point of the Convention, which is to manage exchange. The Bern rules didn’t triumph in giving solid benchmarks to pursue. They essentially indicated out issues consider during the basic leadership process, taking into consideration wide elucidation by the Parties. At the Kyoto CoP, it was built up that the absence of sound rules destabilized CITES. It was clear that an increasingly logical methodology was required. This would move towards constraining political choices and consequently bring about right choices being taken, just as upgrade the nearness of the Rule of Law. c. The Fort Lauderdale CoP: At the Ninth CoP, changes were made to the Bern rules. Right off the bat, and seemingly in particular, logical quantitative rules were presented through the formation of the Fort Lauderdale Criteria. Also, there was a move in qualities to think about when deciding the posting of species from being an exchange status to a natural status. Moreover, the CoP embraced down-posting species that never again require the stringent guidelines of the index they were in, just as allowed split-posting, implying that two distinct populaces of similar species could be in various supplements. I. Post Lauderdale Criteria Explained: The rules, overhauled at the thirteenth CoP in 2004, include four expansive organic criteria for evaluating whether an animal groups ought to be remembered for Appendix I. They express that one must have respect to the size and vacillations of the populace size, variances in the zone of dissemination and nature of the living space of the species. For Appendix II to be met, it either should be realized that guideline of exchange is important to “maintain a strategic distance from it getting qualified for consideration in Appendix I sooner rather than later” or “to guarantee that the collect of examples from the wild isn’t lessening the wild populace.” At first occasion, the criteria seem unclear and don’t appear to give a lot of extra an incentive to the current rules. Nonetheless, this is on the grounds that the definitions given by the CoP are what contain the quantitative criteria. For example, reference to the ‘not so distant future’ is given a numerical estimation of being over five years, however under ten years. In this manner, these exact norms tight the extent of the rules, just as acquaint a progressively logical methodology with the posting system. ii. Objectivity of the FLC: Regardless of whether the FLC are effective in killing political contribution from posting choices is hostile. The quantifiable terms of the criteria show an endeavor to settle on posting choices as experimentally objective as could reasonably be expected. The obviously characterized terms mean to limit watchfulness during the basic leadership process. In any case, the CoP recognizes that species all unfathomably vary from one another and are affected by case-explicit interests. This is delineated by their permission that the figures are only approximations and must be deciphered during their application, which brings about further issues of attentiveness emerging from the criteria. The FLC don’t make simply target rules for basic leadership. In any case, that is for all intents and purposes unimaginable and unreasonable. Along these lines, the endeavor towards expanded objectivity can be seen as an achievement in itself. The way that the criteria advance the utilization of logical language in CoP discourses delineates this accomplishment. It makes the impetus to state contentions utilizing an unbiased jargon, which empowers progressively quiet discussions between Parties. This outcomes in progressively gainful CoP, as individuals are more probable and ready to arrive at productive trade offs. Moreover, the decreasing of contentions additionally lessens the probability that Parties will enter reservations, or even leave the Convention. Organic proof gives conceivable avocations to why certain choices are being taken, which considers residential sponsorship on dubious themes. In spite of the fact that the logical criteria itself will be unable to legitimately make target basic leadership, the way that it supports logical talk at the CoP is a backhanded achievement. Political perspectives and inspirations can never be completely barred, as choices taken by individuals unavoidably include abstract feelings and can never be really fair-minded. In any case, presenting unbiased language>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!

 



error: Content is protected !!